Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 155 posts

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#71

Post by C06aka »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #59
rubidium wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s effectively genocide and quite damning on society. I don’t put it squarely on the parents because it is so difficult. My neice has downs. Interactions with her are about the here and now. Joy and life. Fun and wit. Not plans and efficiency and production. Those with downs are modern day prophets for the rest of us to expose the soul-destroying utilitarian ethics of modern society... and we’re killing them!

It's not genocide by any definition. That would constitute eliminating an existing culture / ethnicity / society.

If eliminating greater than 90% of a group of people via genetic testing and systemic demonization isn't genocide, nothing is.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#72

Post by [deleted] »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #68

Interesting how scientific technology gets used in various cultures. Ultrasounds are illegal in some countries because people abort based on gender due to their cultural view of humanity. Western secular society looks at humans more as mechanistic units in an economic machine instead of as spiritual beings with inherent value, so it’s no surprise that 90% of downs tests result in an abortion.

[deleted]

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#73

Post by _-david-_ »

I've known a guy with down syndrome for over 10 years and saw him at least once a week for years.

He is the happiest person I have ever met. The only time I have ever seen him without a smile was when his mother asked him to stop talking over her. He had a frown for about 5 seconds and then went back to having a huge smile. If you just say hello to him his smile would get even bigger than it already was. Just seeing someone who was so happy all the time really made me feel good.

I moved for a while and anytime I returned he would always ask me about my apartment and the area I was living. He always seemed so interested in my life. Many times people just ask "how are you doing?" but don't actually care since it is just a greeting for them. With this guy he genuinely cared how I was doing. It is so refreshing to have someone like that in my life.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#74

Post by scpedicini »

C06aka wrote: post #71
lanfeust6 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not genocide by any definition. That would constitute eliminating an existing culture / ethnicity / society.

If eliminating greater than 90% of a group of people via genetic testing and systemic demonization isn't genocide, nothing is.

If it's performed as an abortion would that still be considered genocide? Isn't that implying that the fetus is a living person with all the rights accorded to them? That would seem to be going against the contemporary wisdom of abortion wrt women's rights.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#75

Post by dang »

C06aka wrote: post #70
dang wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are deep issues to discuss here. Flamebait and name-calling destroy that possibility, so please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No issues to discuss with the removal of my post, apparently. Not sure where the flamebait or name-calling were. You just didn't like my post. Own your bias.

"You're just biased" is the first retort of every troll. Actually my bias is closer to your view than to the opposite. That's not the issue here.

The issue is that you're coming in with guns blazing, lashing out and firing condemnations at the side you have a problem with. Not only is this not helpful, it does violence to the thread. You're coming in to a room (let's call it) of human beings who have dealt with, and are still dealing with, every side of this profound and painful issue. That calls for compassion, regardless of where you are on the opinion spectrum.

When you show up with intense judgments and condemnations ("genocide", "dystopian", etc.), you're destroying our chance at human understanding. It changes the nature of the thread as much as hitting someone in the face would change a dinner.

It's also the cheapest of internet moves, the easiest thing to produce online, because it feels so good and justified while you're doing it. We've all been there, of course. When it feels like people aren't listening to you, the only thing left to do is shoot rhetoric in the most concentrated form you can come up with. That'll show them.

In reality, what you're doing is poisoning the connections between people. That's not as bad as poisoning people literally, but it's a second-order version of the same thing.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#76

Post by C06aka »

scpedicini wrote: post #74
C06aka wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If eliminating greater than 90% of a group of people via genetic testing and systemic demonization isn't genocide, nothing is.

If it's performed as an abortion would that still be considered genocide? Isn't that implying that the fetus is a living person with all the rights accorded to them? That would seem to be going against the contemporary wisdom of abortion wrt women's rights.

While the personhood and rights that the unborn have are hotly debated, the term genocide, as defined by the person who coined the term, points out that it doesn't mean the immediate murder of all people in that group:

>Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#77

Post by scpedicini »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #66
Daub wrote: post #11

I worked in a residential community consisting of many young people with various disabilities. Most of these had Down’s syndrome. From the OP... > Individuals with Down syndrome generally have outstanding social skills... Dam right! They were amongst the most compassionate, loving and witty people I have ever met. I remain humbled at their extraordinary humanity. Other things the articles mentions are also true. Cert…

> They were amongst the most ... witty people We have to be careful about praising the disabled like this, because we risk being condescending. This is an age-old phenomenon – in Ulysses (published already a century ago), James Joyce has his protagonist muse on the fact that people are so quick to praise a blind person for his jokes not because the person is actually funny, but simply because people’s expectations to…

This weirdly reminded me of how Michael Bluth fails to realize his girlfriend Rita has a learning disability because of her aristocratic sounding British accent in the show Arrested Development.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#78

Post by 83457 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #66
Daub wrote: post #11

I worked in a residential community consisting of many young people with various disabilities. Most of these had Down’s syndrome. From the OP... > Individuals with Down syndrome generally have outstanding social skills... Dam right! They were amongst the most compassionate, loving and witty people I have ever met. I remain humbled at their extraordinary humanity. Other things the articles mentions are also true. Cert…

> They were amongst the most ... witty people We have to be careful about praising the disabled like this, because we risk being condescending. This is an age-old phenomenon – in Ulysses (published already a century ago), James Joyce has his protagonist muse on the fact that people are so quick to praise a blind person for his jokes not because the person is actually funny, but simply because people’s expectations to…

Is it wrong to say they look alike? There are just times where there is such commonality in a group due to genetic abnormalities and other factors that descriptions are more a fact than a stereotype.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#79

Post by C06aka »

dang wrote: post #75
C06aka wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No issues to discuss with the removal of my post, apparently. Not sure where the flamebait or name-calling were. You just didn't like my post. Own your bias.

"You're just biased" is the first retort of every troll. Actually my bias is closer to your view than to the opposite. That's not the issue here. The issue is that you're coming in with guns blazing, lashing out and firing condemnations at the side you have a problem with. Not only is this not helpful, it does violence to the thread. You're coming in to a room (let's call it) of human beings who have dealt with, and…

Then be specific in your criticism. There is a very clear sugar coating of terminology that I think is worth pointing out. There are no guns blazing. I struggle to understand what you take issue with, if not my point.

Re: At Home with Down Syndrome (2008)

#80

Post by scpedicini »

C06aka wrote: post #76
scpedicini wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's performed as an abortion would that still be considered genocide? Isn't that implying that the fetus is a living person with all the rights accorded to them? That would seem to be going against the contemporary wisdom of abortion wrt women's rights.

While the personhood and rights that the unborn have are hotly debated, the term genocide, as defined by the person who coined the term, points out that it doesn't mean the immediate murder of all people in that group: >Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a c…

Yeah I hear what you're saying. However, I still don't think it would be considered genocide in the conventional sense because the woman is not being compelled to have an abortion, it is an individual choice.

Even if the percentage of women electing to have an abortion is high, they're not acting as a singular cohesive body with the collective goal to eliminate all children having Down syndrome.

Post reply on HN